Eric Wong <e@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> diff --git a/builtin/cat-file.c b/builtin/cat-file.c
> index 2aedd62324..067cdbdbf9 100644
> --- a/builtin/cat-file.c
> +++ b/builtin/cat-file.c
> @@ -417,7 +417,8 @@ static void print_object_or_die(struct batch_options *opt, struct expand_data *d
> case OI_DBCACHED:
> unlock_delta_base_cache();
> }
> - } else if (data->type == OBJ_BLOB) {
> + } else {
> + assert(data->type == OBJ_BLOB);
> if (opt->buffer_output)
> fflush(stdout);
> if (opt->transform_mode) {
Hmph, because until this step, the control could reach this function
with data->content NULL for a non-BLOB type, even though we
eliminated that with the previous step for "--batch" command user.
This step covers "--batch-command" user to also force the
data->content to be populated, so we no longer will see anything but
BLOB when data->content is NULL.
That sounds correct with the current code, but it somehow feels a
bit too subtle to my taste. In addition to an assert(), future
readers of this code would deserve a comment describing why we can
safely assume that blobs are the only types we will see here. That
way, they can tell when they add another command that ends up calling
this function that they too will need to do the contentp thing.
> @@ -452,30 +453,6 @@ static void print_object_or_die(struct batch_options *opt, struct expand_data *d
> stream_blob(oid);
> }
> }
> - else {
> - enum object_type type;
> - unsigned long size;
> - void *contents;
> -
> - contents = repo_read_object_file(the_repository, oid, &type,
> - &size);
> - if (!contents)
> - die("object %s disappeared", oid_to_hex(oid));
> -
> - if (use_mailmap) {
> - size_t s = size;
> - contents = replace_idents_using_mailmap(contents, &s);
> - size = cast_size_t_to_ulong(s);
> - }
> -
> - if (type != data->type)
> - die("object %s changed type!?", oid_to_hex(oid));
> - if (data->info.sizep && size != data->size && !use_mailmap)
> - die("object %s changed size!?", oid_to_hex(oid));
> -
> - batch_write(opt, contents, size);
> - free(contents);
> - }
And it certainly is nice that we can get rid of this fallback code.
By the way, the previous step sshould rename the .content_limit
member to make it clear that (1) it is about the size limit, and (2)
it only applies to blobs. Ideally (1) should be done much earlier
in the series, and (2) must be done when the code starts to ignore
the member for non-blob types.
Thanks.
